I was wondering why 3.0 changed to 3.5. Was it a marketing thing? Was it because they wanted to power up some things and power down others? Was it something else? I remember reading something about balance issues, but I can't remember. Does someone know?
It might help me understand why I abandoned 3.5 after a while.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I vaguely remember it was to fix some issues and bring "balance" to the game. I think personally it might have been a little bit of a money grab.
ReplyDeleteI don't actually remember the differences between the two that much.
I think bringing balance to an rpg that was not really unbalanced means it is being treated like a wargame
ReplyDeleteIt was claimed to be a balance thing. The two things I remember them fixing was Haste (Which used to give you a bonus standard action or something, allowing you to caste more spells a turn than normal) and I'm pretty sure they tweaked two weapon fighting, getting rid of one of the extra feats you needed (Ambidexterity)
ReplyDeleteI too think it was a bit of a money grab, as I'm sure they could have just errated stuff to fix some of this, but then I can't remember all the changes involved.
As for balance, their was some trick using haste that just allowed ridiculousness and was horribly unbalanced.
Though hands up all those who don't think D&D is basically a wargame?
it is a wargame definitely.
ReplyDeleteAccording to one of the designers of 3.0, the plan was to do a revision of the books 5 years or so after the release of 3.0. IIRC, he said the idea was to keep the same rules but fix all the errata, add new artwork, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe 3.0 designers left, WotC decided they wanted to relaunch the rules earlier than planned, and the new design team decided they wanted to change all the rules they didn't like.
As well as the changes Rob mentioned, they got rid of most of the save or die spell effects and made lots of other minor changes.
Apart from the haste thing I think 3.0 was the better set of rules.
Monte Cook has a review of 3.5 here that I think might be of interest to you.
ReplyDeleteIt was a money grab. There were changes, arguably good ones, but experienced players could've made those changes for themselves. Overall, it just felt like they were making sure you bought new books.
ReplyDeleteYep, a money grab. That was a good article. I recommend a read even if it's just for the game history.
ReplyDelete